For “many” I’d substitute “occasionally”.
For conspiracy theories this drops to “virtually never”.
For incredibly lame conspiracy theories we’re talking about possibility diluted to homeopathic levels.
And for chrissake, won’t someone think of the kittens?
There's no doubt Jimi Hendrix was murdered by waterboarding. A strictly intelligence agency method.Oh, no, there is much doubt about that. And you have now switched from drowned in wine to death by waterboarding? Doesn’t this at least feel a little bit like you have changed your story?
Unless you examine the facts. Or know what waterboarding means.
EDIT: Come to think of it, you’re saying he was drowned in wine. So wasn’t this actually wineboarding? Or if you prefer, capital pinot-shment, merlot-de-see, etc.
Please.
We know the guilty party is a bordeauxline personality.
You are wittier than me.
And Jetblast, shouldn’t the ambulance dudes have reported a shitload of water around the room? Would the lying girlfriend have needed to claim she washed “the sick” off with wine if he had been waterboarded? Can you even remember all of the bullshit you have claimed here?
This post has been graped by MI5!
They’d need something more sophisticated than that tequila rock star.
Now you’re just shirazzin’ me.
jetblast, I know you feel frustrated by this. This is typical of the Eureka Effect I spoke about above. You know The Truth. The rest is therefore just details and pettifogging.
You feel like you have seen the sculpture hidden inside the rock, and it is just a matter of Michaelangelo chipping away at the dross to leave the image revealed in all its glory.
The problem - the metapor of the hidden sculpture is not real. It is a poetic idea. There is just undifferentiated rock all the way through, and the mind of the sculptor imposing his will on it. Any other sculptor could have taken the same rock and made something entirely different.
Part of your frustration is your sense that you are smarter than us. (You keep referring to “smart” people understanding things - this is clearly just coded language for “jetblast is smart”.
Whether you are smarter than us or not is not something I will take the time to discuss, to avoid a “my IQ can kick your IQ’s ass any day of the week” exchange. But I will say that being smart does not give anyone privileged access to truth. There have been Nobel prizewinners who were cranks outside their fields (or even in them - Linus Pauling had wildly inflated ideas about the value of Vitamin C as a universal panacea, and he won two Nobel Prizes). Einstein got stuff wrong, too - God apparently does play dice.
There are two Western cultural biases that feed your beliefs. First is the power of the image of Cassandra - the person cursed with the ability to see the truth yet not be believed. To identify yourself with her must be a very emotionally powerful experience for you. Yet you must realise that the reason the overwhelming majority of people who think of themselves as Cassandras are not believed is simply because they are wrong.
The second cultural bias is a related one, specific to scientific inquiry - the attractiveness of the notion of the stellar genius working in isolation figuring out the earth-shattering breakthrough that has stumped the finest of minds. To be the first to see what no-one else has been smart enough to see. Part of the juiciness of the idea is tolerating the slings and arrows flung at the idea, only to be proved right in the end. But as someone upthread has hinted at, and as the writer John Sladek has said, “They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Galileo. And they laughed at Punch and Judy.”
The vast majority of people whose ideas are laughed at are not Galileo. Nor are you. You have no real-world experience of just how weak the evidence you are trying to rely upon is, or would become upon close scrutiny. You have a false sense of what’s normal in police investigations. You have a false sense (derived from extravagant fiction) of what intelligence operations are like, and that intelligence operatives have superhuman competence.
You handwave the identification of major gaps in your theory with protestations that it is all detail - the beauty of the big picture idea triumphs over all.
Well, no. In the real world, people who have to be responsible about decision making have to be shown more than just faces in the clouds.
Don't patronize me Prosequi, you've been thoroughly beaten.
The correct description here is the sculpture has been adequately revealed only it keeps being covered over by all the foul material being thrown on it.
No. The real description here is that the marble mass was carved in stone on September 18th by Hendrix's murderers. The real bust was never adequately shown to the public because we have crooked governments capable of keeping some exhibits private in the public museum of law and truth. The wing containing Hendrix's bust is still illegally being kept closed by Scotland Yard.
If you even attempted to touch the evidence I presented instead of trying to blatantly side-step it with theoretical rumination and sidetracking you might have some credibility. I have discussed some things that are undeniable in solid evidence. Your staying well away from them says all we need to know. What kills your efforts is the fact no prosecutor, if he was prosecuting the case from the other side, would ever miss or fail to follow through on the evidence I've presented. That's true no matter how many excuses you make for it and kills your input no matter what you say. If you are intimating that "real-world experience" includes flagrantly denying evidence known to be true then I agree. In the end your replies are just offhand evasions and ponderings away from the facts and in that alone I win. We refer once again to the greek theory that those whose input stays completely away from all the actual evidence being discussed are those who more than outwardly show us they can't directly reply to what is being said. The more effort and volume in doing this the greater the effect. And that's all you need to know. The proof is more than obvious for those who are actually looking for it. All else can deny it anyway they wish at their own expense. The sign of a good case is one that drives its opponents away from being able to answer it. And that's what we've done here no matter how the defeated describe it.
I think you fool yourself that your legal contrivances are adequate replacement for the evidence I've shown and what it says. For instance you said digestion and absorption rates vary so much as to be useless for evidence but I think I showed they don't. You simply defy reality to deny that prosecutors don't use those forensic factors all the time in gaining convictions with the opinion of experts. It's only when the government is the one that is guilty that those obvious loopholes become unquestionable. You are referring to that cheap tactic as decisive but it isn't. And you'll find having the corruption of courts and governments on your side to be a very easy position to defend.
So you have real nerve, in my opinion, since it is you who is "handwaving" away the facts as the form of the posts alone will show my material to be answered by one-liners and ridicule rather than any substantive evaluation of the facts. This is a very real debate with very real facts and consequences. In my opinion you have failed it miserably by non-entry into that which is required in order to have credibility. You can reference your evasions as ruling, but they aren't. It is a plain matter of fact that the ruling logic which you reference is pure sophistry outside and separate from the actual facts, logic, and evidence. The substance of your input is therefore mostly insubstantial sophistry and entangling rules designed to escape the obvious. My material contains the actual meaty substance of the evidence and the necessary logical pertinencies involved. You can't compare the two. In the end you are presenting air (or "noble gas") and I am presenting substance you obviously can't answer directly. The fact you lean so heavily on air is why the corporeal matter of my input holds up my case. In the end air fails to carve a bust. It is your side that uses the 'pettifoggery' to try to fog it over.
Which is exactly why your input fails. Never once have you produced anything to show otherwise in relation to what I've said. So in effect my evidence was mostly unopposed if you calculate credible form. One can seize and try to force the usual legal devices used to deny evidence but the effort is obvious for what it is against the facts. So while you accuse me of an ignorance of legal process I accuse you of a defiance of moral reality.
Trying to force semantics to separate waterboarding from drowning in wine is a fool's effort and one that exposes a pure reluctance to admit the obvious. It shows a lack of judgment and willingness to entertain the ridiculous that must force us to disqualify any input from the offerer and therefore take Bannister's judgment about the wine over those who commit this offense. We are much more on solid ground here with the evidence that is being avoided than in any clouds we are being distracted towards by vaporous sophistry. When that vaporous cloud is pushed away by truthful analysis we can see the face of a solid stone bust. And that bust shows us the ugly face of murder. No amount of self-indulgent puffery can lead us away from that image no matter how boldly it is tried. The play is cast and the stage is set with the full cast of ugly characters. And no inappropriately lowered curtain of legal trickery or denial can cause us to fail to understand that play. Something is rotten in Denmark, and like a blood hound, no amount of verbal distraction can hide that wicked scent. Those who move away from the scent are seen for what they are and those who keep insisting to follow the scent trail are those who present progressive conclusions. The only clouds here are those being used to obscure the obvious.
In the end the British Government's case has been proven to be based on lies and is therefore invalid. So any effort to deny my input is merely a vain attempt to shout what they themselves are guilty of from a clearly and conspicuously broken pedastal. There can be no vaild input past those who have been shown to be in contempt of their own rules no matter how corrupt a venue is imposed.You’ve presented the following facts in this thread:
Jimi Hendrix is dead. He had wine and barbiturates in his system when he died.
Michael Jeffery was a scumbag and is dead.
Monika Danneman and Devon Wilson are dead.
Noel Redding left the Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1969.
All of this information is 35 to 40 years old. Your case falls down when you try to draw connections between these things, and you case is nothing but connections between these things.
Don’t you want somebody to love?
You better find somebody to love
[Lionel Hutz]I’ve got hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.[/Lionel Hutz]
Shrug.
You have brought patronisation on yourself.
On the evidence of your posts to date, your thought processes are stuck at the level of a primary school child.
You won’t tell us what particular expertise or insight you bring that makes your idiosyncratic sense of conviction worth a pinch of … anything, really.
Your legal knowledge is flawed to non-existent. The proposition that some of the evidence heard at a proceeding is “lies” does not make the proceeding “invalid”. In any proceeding someone will be saying that a witness has lied. They may even have a basis for it. It doesn’t follow that the proceeding is set aside merely on that ground. Consider a case where a drug dealer is shot in an attempted rip off. The drug dealer will give evidence, but deny that he was selling drugs - he will claim he was in the back alley to urinate or the like, and will say he was shot for no reason at all. Let’s suppose that’s a lie. It does not follow that his attackers must be acquitted (they commonly aren’t), or that the proceedings are “invalid” (whatever you might mean by that).
I am only giving a simple example here to illustrate my point, not to argue by analogy. But my point is that your simplistic equation that lies = “invalidity” is wrong. There is a whole complicated pile of jurisprudence involved in this area about which you know absolutely nothing. And this assumes the correctness of the proposition that she lied (as opposed to being scattered) in the first place. You still haven’t come close to establishing that her lies (assuming there were any) establish murder.
As to being “thoroughly beaten”, may I refer you to what I have said earlier - having won (in your view) has anything in the real world changed? Have you had the inquest reopened? Persuaded anyone at all to your view? Every time someone has asked any of the people who have viewed this thread if they are persuaded by you (and this thread has had tens of thousands of views) the resounding response is crickets.
When winning looks exactly like losing, you need to check your reality meter.
The mental image I have of you is that of a Certain Toothbrush-Moustached Leader sitting in his bunker as the Allies approached, moving imaginary armies around convinced that they will come to his rescue and he will win after all. (Anyone want to scratch up one of those Downfall mashups?)
I now rely on the little-used Godwin subclause that allows for calling in a Godwinesque airstrike on one’s own position where to do so is a way to invoke a mercy rule against one’s opponent.
Let it go, jetblast.
I almost choked on my liver and bacon when I read this. I mean it is one thing to believe you have a case but to be totally delusional is way off the planet.
Every so often, I poke my head in here to see what the latest twists are. It’s, um, astounding. I have nothing to add to the “discussion,” but I feel the need to say that you, Noel Prosequi, are a patient man/woman.
That’s what they want you to believe. We really know it was the MI5 with an assist from Eric Burdon forcing liver and bacon down your throat to silence you because you were getting too close to the truth.
OMG, a google search of “eric burdon liver bacon MI5” garners one million, five hundred thousand hits! This must be a common intelligence agency murder method!
Then, to wash away the evidence, they pour several bottles of wine into your lungs!! No one would think to look for it there. How fiendishly clever!!!
We need a new inquest to search for liver and bacon dissolved in the wine.
Or maybe we should just increase our Vesperax dosage.
Which must explain why you are so publicly unable to address the actual facts being discussed and insist in drawing the debate into these empty sidetracks of you listening to yourself talk. And I'm sure everyone is convinced of the sincerity of your claim that you aren't addressing the direct facts because they are so ridiculous and have already been answered (instead of you simply being unable to face them as is more than obvious). As long as you stay outside that evidence which is actually being discussed and insist in remaining only in that of your own creation you forfeit the debate. You simply can't answer the points. That has been more than obvious for a long time here. The more you use ad hominem like above the harder that fact becomes. I'm sure you are more than happy dwelling in these irrelevancies because they help you filibuster the facts and keep us outside the actual arguments.
When you make these filibustering sidetrack arguments you move away from the bloodhound scent. There's a very simple formula here seen in simple form. When you move away from the substance of the evidence you show a need to avoid it. Those arguments that do so commit the offense of evasion or insincere argument. My arguments, which have been completely avoided move towards the center of the bloodhound scent. No valid bloodhound, whose purpose is following the scent trail, can offer anything as long as they refuse to obey basic scent tracking. And so we have stray dogs telling us why we are off-track.
One credential I know I wear proudly is having defeated Prosequi in this debate.
What I love about you is you think people can't see that if someone tried that same dubious argument against you you would shoot it down quickly with some of your very own legal contrivances. In other words you wouldn't accept the very arguments you make and have shown us so already on these pages. Your argument is laughably decrepit simply because you think we'll let you get away with ignoring that those lies are attached to some very damning associated evidence like motive by the manager and witnesses who witnessed incriminating behavior. We'll just try to completely ignore that there was also an alleged witnessed confession admitting murder. We wouldn't want to disturb your flimsy arguments while they had some momentum going with something like a confession - after all, why let that get in the way of an obviously false verdict during an investigation, that, by all normal standards, would be described as totally incompetent? No, forget all those iron-clad legal niceties, we'll let Prosequi lead this hoop and poodle show around by that cheap nose ring for now. After all, he's doing so well...
I'd love to see Prosequi offer his "lies don't mean invalid" argument to a judge. And, gee, to think they've been wasting all their time on that perjury stuff for so long that our so-called expert, who speaks down to us on how poor our legal knowledge is, is correcting us over. I'd love to see the judge's opinion on that. After all, you know how forgiving courts are for lies. They don't really matter. Naw...
I didn't realize I had won so well.
Again, if we view your input and arguments you would be the first person to reject everything you wrote above. The correct interpretation is that we've forced Scotland Yard to show its corrupt face with a criminally wrongful decision. We've also forced you into these ridiculous side arguments and taunting ad hominem all of which you would be the first person to call irrelevant if the tables were turned. Our job is to argue the facts and show the truth. What the public does with it be damned. And if you think we are waiting for your admission, when you've more than admitted it already in the inverse through your evasions, you are the one living in fantasy. And I'm sure the taxpayers appreciate your efforts for them.
Which is how I feel about the scurrilous defense of murderers against those who cry out murder.
I would be more worried about being seen as a Machiavellian lord smug in his wet fang of contempt and kept comfortable in a padded den of corruption kept safe by all that which is wicked. Like a cruel lord who enjoys pawing his victims as they suffer. English literature is full of these types. One need not cross the channel for references. Hendrix's murder and its being covered-up is very Gestapo itself without having to travel far.
May those who defend murderers against their victims hang with them...